This graph tells you which suspect to bring in because it shows a positive correlation in the data. The correlation in this data is positive because as the height of the person increases so does the shoe size. So, if you have the height or shoe size of a suspect you can easily figure out the missing piece of data due to the fact that height and shoe length directly relate. Penelope Paige is the suspect to bring in because if you use the line of best fit equation found on the graph with y being the shoe size and x being the persons height, you can enter the data given for her which is her height to find the shoe size. Paige's height is 5'4" or 66" and when you enter in that data in for x (person's height) it will give you y= which is the shoe size. After doing the equation you get her shoe size to be 10. If you do that process with every other suspect and compare it to the data on the graph, Penelope's data is the only one whose match up with the correlation of persons height to shoe length.
Lavoisier a liar? Can matter really neither be created nor destroyed? Purpose: To determine if Lavoisier is correct when he says matter is conserved and neither created nor destroyed.
Data collected before the reaction:
Reactants - Mass (g)
Mass of empty beaker A: 30.104 g Mass of compound placed in beaker A: .7534 g Mass of empty beaker B: 29.135 g Mass of compound placed in beaker B: 1.202 g Total mass of compounds placed in beaker A & B: 1.9554 g -Compound mass A (.7534 g) + Compound mass B (1.202 g) .7534 g + 1.202 g= 1.9554 g
Mass of clean filter paper: .898 g
Data collected after the water is boiled off and beakers are allowed to cool:
Products -Mass (g)
Mass of beaker A & filter with compound: 31.782 g Mass of compound recovered in beaker A: 0.78 g -Mass of beaker A & filter with compound ( 31.782 g) - Mass of empty beaker A ( 30.104 g) + Mass of clean filter paper ( .898 g) Mass of beaker B + compound: 30.5401 g Mass of recovered compound in beaker B: 1.4051 g -Mass of beaker B & filter with compound ( 30.5401 g) - Mass of empty beaker B ( 29.185 g) + Mass of clean filter paper ( .898 g)
Total mass of both A & B compounds: 2.1851 g -Compound recovered beaker A (0.78 g) + Compound recovered beaker B ( 1.4051 g) 0.78 g + 1.4051 g = 2.1851 g
Total Mass of compounds before the reaction: 1.9554 g Mass of compound in beaker A (.7534 g) + Mass of compound in beaker B ( 1.202 g)
Total Mass of compounds after the reaction: 2.1851 g Mass of compound recovered in beaker B (1.4051 g) + Mass of compound recovered in beaker A ( 0.78 g)
Conclusion: Our results did not confirm the conservation of mass because our percent error was 11.77%. In order for the results to prove the conservation of mass your percent error must be under 10% and ours was not. Percent error: 1.9554 - 2.1851= .2297 1.2 + .75 = 1.95 .2297/1.95= .1177 .1177 X 100= 11.77%
Mendeleev: Predicting the Future? Purpose: To predict the density of the element Germanium by determining the density of the other metals found in the same column of the periodic table. Data:
Element
Trial
mass (g)
Volume Change (mL)
Density (g/mL)
Average Density (g/mL)
Silicon
1
2
3
2.51 g
5.08 g
6.76 g
1 mL
2 mL
2.7 mL
2.51 g/mL
2.54 g/mL
2.50 g/mL
2.52 g/mL
Tin
1 2 3
1.11 g
2.03 g
2.84 g
.05 mL
.1 mL
.15 mL
22.2 g/mL
20.3 g/mL
18.9 g/mL
20.5 g/mL
Lead
1
2
3
4.06 g
9.79 g
16.02 g
.8 mL
1.3 mL
2 mL
5.075 g/mL
7.5 g/mL
8.01 g/mL
6.86 g/mL
Element
Period
Average Density
Si
3
2.52 g/mL
Sn
5
20.5 g/mL
Pb
6
6.86 g/mL
*To calculate the volume change, you subtract the new found volume of the water from the original volume before placing the element in. Best Fit Line equation: y=2.5243x-1.82Correlation: 0.1689Predicted Density of the period 4 element (Germanium): 5.0 g/mL Questions: 1) 5.35-5.0 X 100 = 6.545.352) Silicon: 2.33-2.52 X 100 = -8.14 2.33 Tin: 7.31-20.5 X 100 = -180.43 7.31 Lead: 11.35-6.86 X 100= 39.66 11.353) a- The density would be higher because the volume is lower. Because density is mass/volume. b- The density would be lower because the volume is higher. Because density is mass/volume. For our lab the data did not exactly match up to what it was expected to be. There are several ways on why this may have happened. One way it may have happened is that every time the mass was taken after an amount of an element was added, they hit zero on the scale. Because they hit zero on the scale, it started with a brand new mass amount each time instead of continuously adding and gaining mass. If the mass of the elements is incorrect, that would throw off the density since density = mass divided by volume. This also would make the average density for the entire element incorrect because the average density is calculated by adding all 3 trials density amount and dividing by 3. Another way our data may not have come out to what it is expected is they may have mixed up tin and lead. Lead is a heavier element compared to the others and the density amounts that were recorded for tin seem to fit more under lead characteristics.
I like to hunt
.
This graph tells you which suspect to bring in because it shows a positive correlation in the data. The correlation in this data is positive because as the height of the person increases so does the shoe size. So, if you have the height or shoe size of a suspect you can easily figure out the missing piece of data due to the fact that height and shoe length directly relate. Penelope Paige is the suspect to bring in because if you use the line of best fit equation found on the graph with y being the shoe size and x being the persons height, you can enter the data given for her which is her height to find the shoe size. Paige's height is 5'4" or 66" and when you enter in that data in for x (person's height) it will give you y= which is the shoe size. After doing the equation you get her shoe size to be 10. If you do that process with every other suspect and compare it to the data on the graph, Penelope's data is the only one whose match up with the correlation of persons height to shoe length.
Lavoisier a liar? Can matter really neither be created nor destroyed?
Purpose: To determine if Lavoisier is correct when he says matter is conserved and neither created nor destroyed.
Data collected before the reaction:
- Reactants - Mass (g)
Mass of empty beaker A: 30.104 gMass of compound placed in beaker A: .7534 g
Mass of empty beaker B: 29.135 g
Mass of compound placed in beaker B: 1.202 g
Total mass of compounds placed in beaker A & B: 1.9554 g
-Compound mass A (.7534 g) + Compound mass B (1.202 g)
.7534 g + 1.202 g= 1.9554 g
Mass of clean filter paper: .898 g
Data collected after the water is boiled off and beakers are allowed to cool:
- Products - Mass (g)
Mass of beaker A & filter with compound: 31.782 gMass of compound recovered in beaker A: 0.78 g
-Mass of beaker A & filter with compound ( 31.782 g) - Mass of empty beaker A ( 30.104 g) + Mass of clean filter paper ( .898 g)
Mass of beaker B + compound: 30.5401 g
Mass of recovered compound in beaker B: 1.4051 g
-Mass of beaker B & filter with compound ( 30.5401 g) - Mass of empty beaker B ( 29.185 g) + Mass of clean filter paper ( .898 g)
Total mass of both A & B compounds: 2.1851 g
-Compound recovered beaker A (0.78 g) + Compound recovered beaker B ( 1.4051 g)
0.78 g + 1.4051 g = 2.1851 g
Total Mass of compounds before the reaction: 1.9554 g
Mass of compound in beaker A (.7534 g) + Mass of compound in beaker B ( 1.202 g)
Total Mass of compounds after the reaction: 2.1851 g
Mass of compound recovered in beaker B (1.4051 g) + Mass of compound recovered in beaker A ( 0.78 g)
Conclusion:
Our results did not confirm the conservation of mass because our percent error was 11.77%. In order for the results to prove the conservation of mass your percent error must be under 10% and ours was not.
Percent error:
1.9554 - 2.1851= .2297
1.2 + .75 = 1.95
.2297/1.95= .1177
.1177 X 100= 11.77%
Mendeleev: Predicting the Future?
Purpose: To predict the density of the element Germanium by determining the density of the other metals found in the same column of the periodic table.
Data:
Silicon
2
3
5.08 g
6.76 g
2 mL
2.7 mL
2.54 g/mL
2.50 g/mL
2.52 g/mL
Tin
1
2
3
1.11 g
2.03 g
2.84 g
.05 mL
.1 mL
.15 mL
22.2 g/mL
20.3 g/mL
18.9 g/mL
20.5 g/mL
Lead
1
2
3
4.06 g
9.79 g
16.02 g
.8 mL
1.3 mL
2 mL
5.075 g/mL
7.5 g/mL
8.01 g/mL
6.86 g/mL
*To calculate the volume change, you subtract the new found volume of the water from the original volume before placing the element in.
Best Fit Line equation: y=2.5243x-1.82Correlation: 0.1689Predicted Density of the period 4 element (Germanium): 5.0 g/mL
Questions:
1) 5.35-5.0 X 100 = 6.545.352) Silicon: 2.33-2.52 X 100 = -8.14 2.33
Tin: 7.31-20.5 X 100 = -180.43 7.31
Lead: 11.35-6.86 X 100= 39.66 11.353) a- The density would be higher because the volume is lower. Because density is mass/volume.
b- The density would be lower because the volume is higher. Because density is mass/volume.
For our lab the data did not exactly match up to what it was expected to be. There are several ways on why this may have happened. One way it may have happened is that every time the mass was taken after an amount of an element was added, they hit zero on the scale. Because they hit zero on the scale, it started with a brand new mass amount each time instead of continuously adding and gaining mass. If the mass of the elements is incorrect, that would throw off the density since density = mass divided by volume. This also would make the average density for the entire element incorrect because the average density is calculated by adding all 3 trials density amount and dividing by 3. Another way our data may not have come out to what it is expected is they may have mixed up tin and lead. Lead is a heavier element compared to the others and the density amounts that were recorded for tin seem to fit more under lead characteristics.